For this exercise, the members of a Falmouth Unitarian Universalist Church discussion group will serve as proxies for all Cape residents.

The topic is wastewater, the ways to pay for it and the economic justice inherent in the various options.

That was the basis of a discussion group at the Falmouth UU Church March 14, “Financing Wastewater and Economic Justice in Falmouth.”

Substitute “Falmouth” with Barnstable, Yarmouth or any Cape town, because the nature of the debate will be the same.

Former Falmouth town administrator and present member of that town’s water quality committee Peter Boyer ran down the various funding options available to pay for whatever solution is agreed upon. Taxes, user fees, betterments and the combination of those forms were explained, with examples of how past Falmouth decisions were made, highlighting some of the options.

There was also a short session on the basics of ethics and how they might apply to the question of fairness in paying for wastewater. The main conundrum is when two universally accepted values conflict, such as fairness vs. compassion. A right vs. Right scenario.

During the break, Boyer agreed that the conversation that evening needs to be and will be repeated in some fashion across the Cape.

Substitute “Old Silver Beach,” which saw the installation of a sewer system paid 70 percent by the residents and 30 percent by the town, with an appropriate local water body (think Stewarts Creek in Hyannis), and the same kinds of hard decisions apply, on costs, who pays and how that fits into a master plan apply.

After breaking into three groups to discuss the ethical side of the “who pays?” question, the bits and pieces overheard proved very familiar to the Barnstable experience. While the content shifts, the general points of agreement and disagreement remain.

Areas that won’t see sewer should pay because it’s an issue confronting the entire town. Those hooked to the system should pay more, because they are directly benefiting from the installation.

If there was any consensus on who pays, a shared mixture of betterment and taxes emerged, somewhat. The greater part of each discussion, however, dealt with trying to understand the complexity of the issue from a number of perspectives.

As Win Munro, who led the discussion, noted, “Basically, what everyone did was go beyond the exercise and on to substantive issues.”

And that’s part of the difficulty those seeking to address the wastewater problem will face.

During the wrap-up, an observation was that discussions such as that one, however useful, were reaching the wrong audience.

The 30 or so participants were engaged, informed citizens, all with a level of caring about the outcome.

As one participant noted, “I don't think that includes a whole lot of people in the town of Falmouth.”

Again, substitute “Falmouth” with Barnstable or Yarmouth or Harwich or any other Cape town.

The public plan being developed by the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative to meeting with boards of selectmen across the Cape and town councilors in Barnstable is a good one, but that, too, will be just a start. The executive directors of the Collaborative and Cape Cod Commission were charged by the county commissioners to developing options on what a regional wastewater entity could look like. They were specifically directed to make it as open a public process as possible.

Repetition will be the key to gaining an understanding beyond the dollars involved, which also needs to be developed.

Whether residents have the stamina for that level of information and repetition needs to be seen.

While to many, failure is not an option for wastewater, failure has been the going result for town-based efforts.

DS II

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it